Geographic methods for understanding and responding to disparities in mammography use in Toronto, Canada
- 39 Downloads
OBJECTIVE: To use spatial and epidemiologic analyses to understand disparities in mammaography use and to formulate interventions to increase its uptake in low-income, high-recent immigration areas in Toronto, Canada.
DESIGN: We compared mammography rates in four income-immigration census tract groups. Data were obtained from the 1996 Canadian census and 2000 physician billing claims. Risk ratios, linear regression, multilayer maps, and spatial analysis were used to examine utilization by area for women age 45 to 64 years.
SETTING: Residential population of inner city Toronto, Canada, with a 1996 population of 780,000.
PARTICIPANTS: Women age 45 to 64 residing in Toronto’s inner city in the year 2000.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 113,762 women age 45 to 64, 27,435 (24%) had received a mammogram during 2000 and 91,542 (80%) had seen a physician. Only 21% of women had a mammogram in the least advantaged group (low income-high immigration), compared with 27% in the most advantaged group (high income-low immigration) (risk ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.75 to 0.84). Multilayer maps demonstrated a low income-high immigration band running through Toronto’s inner city and low mammography rates within that band. There was substantial geographic clustering of study variables.
CONCLUSIONS: We found marked variation in mammography rates by area, with the lowest rates associated with low income and high immigration. Spatial patterns identified areas with low mammography and low physician visit rates appropriate for outreach and public education interventions. We also identified areas with low mammography and high physician visit rates appropriate for interventions targeted at physicians.
Key wordsmammography socioeconomic factors emigration and immigration preventive health services geography
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 8.DeMers MN. Fundamentals of Geographic Information Systems. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2000:7–16.Google Scholar
- 9.Cromley EK. GIS and Public Health. New York: Guilford Press; 2002:35–7.Google Scholar
- 17.U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Available at: http://www.ahcpr.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/breastcancer/brcanrr.htm. Accessed January 7, 2004.Google Scholar
- 18.Canadian Taskforce on Preventive Health Care. Available at: http://www.ctfphc.org. Accessed January 7, 2004.Google Scholar
- 23.Roche LM, Skinner R, Weinstein RB syste. Use of a geographic information m to identify and characterize areas with high proportions of distant stage breast cancer. Public Health Manag Pract. 2002;8:26–32.Google Scholar
- 25.Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Facts and Figures, 2000—Immigration Overview. Ottawa: Strategic Policy, Planning and Research, Citizenship and Immigration Canada; 2001. Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Canada.Google Scholar
- 26.Fotheringham AS, Brunsdon C, Charlton M. Quantitative Geography Perspectives on Spatial Data Analysis. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2002:237–40.Google Scholar
- 27.Dent BD. Cartography: Thematic Map Design. 5th ed. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown; 1999:138–86.Google Scholar
- 28.Jones CB. Geographic Information Systems and Computer Cartography. Harlow, Essex: Addison Wesley Longman Ltd; 1997:197–208.Google Scholar
- 29.Davison AC, Hinkley DV. Bootstrap Methods and Their Applications. New York: Cambridge Press; 1997.Google Scholar
- 30.Bailey TC, Gatrell AC. Interactive Spatial Data Analysis. New York: Longman Scientific & Technical Publications; 1995:274–89.Google Scholar